Already delays in BFL shipment plans? - page 11.

Inaba

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

Quote from: creativex on November 28, 2012, 03:01:51 PM

Another fine post Josh, thanks for contributing. Grin

Quote from: Inaba on November 28, 2012, 02:54:06 PM

The only thread of bankruptcy here is your credibility, which went bankrupt a long time ago. How's that transparency working out for you over in BTCFPGA land?

Yeah well, it's not my credibility at issue here in this thread is it sir? Perhaps you missed the topic title.

Since you asked, I'm disappointed with the delay of course, but I've chosen to stand pat with Tom because I believed his explanation. The fact that he didn't try to make it sound like a quick pass with the feather duster would tidy up the problems and instead announced a significant delay actually made it more credible. Obviously he knows paying customers will be disappointed and maybe even pissed and cancel, but he didn't try to pass it off as a two week delay with "fuzzy"(BS) dates. Get it? Is ANY of this sinking in?

You're right, your credibility isn't at stake, because you have none. You are an idiot and a liar, have been proven to be one numerous times over and yet you continue to post lies and BS. Yeah, you are a real stand up citizen!

Yeah, we'll see how many BTC that "transparency" buys you come January. Good luck with that.

Bitinvestor

sr. member

Activity: 470

Merit: 250

Quote from: Inaba on November 28, 2012, 02:54:06 PM

Quote from: creativex on November 28, 2012, 02:40:02 PM

I wonder what BFL's balance sheet looks like. They could be at real risk of bankruptcy, particularly if they have actually dipped into pre-order funds for all this supposed chip tinkering. I wonder how long they can stay affloat while talking about bullet runs, respins, and multiple product delays.

Ironically it's ASICs and their pre-order launch in particular that's crimped the FPGA market, so I'm sure sales of existing products must be way down even with the upgrade policy in place.

Yeah, I bet you do wonder... because it's clear you know absolutely nothing about anything. "At real risk of bankruptcy" yeah, right. The only thread of bankruptcy here is your credibility, which went bankrupt a long time ago. How's that transparency working out for you over in BTCFPGA land?

Rule #2 of investing: Don't believe a rumour until it has been officially denied.

creativex

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Another fine post Josh, thanks for contributing. Grin

Quote from: Inaba on November 28, 2012, 02:54:06 PM

The only thread of bankruptcy here is your credibility, which went bankrupt a long time ago. How's that transparency working out for you over in BTCFPGA land?

Yeah well, it's not my credibility at issue here in this thread is it sir? Perhaps you missed the topic title.

Since you asked, I'm disappointed with the delay of course, but I've chosen to stand pat with Tom because I believed his explanation. The fact that he didn't try to make it sound like a quick pass with the feather duster would tidy up the problems and instead announced a significant delay actually made it more credible. Obviously he knows paying customers will be disappointed and maybe even pissed and cancel, but he didn't try to pass it off as a two week delay with "fuzzy"(BS) dates. Get it? Is ANY of this sinking in?

Inaba

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

Quote from: creativex on November 28, 2012, 02:40:02 PM

I wonder what BFL's balance sheet looks like. They could be at real risk of bankruptcy, particularly if they have actually dipped into pre-order funds for all this supposed chip tinkering. I wonder how long they can stay affloat while talking about bullet runs, respins, and multiple product delays.

Ironically it's ASICs and their pre-order launch in particular that's crimped the FPGA market, so I'm sure sales of existing products must be way down even with the upgrade policy in place.

Yeah, I bet you do wonder... because it's clear you know absolutely nothing about anything. "At real risk of bankruptcy" yeah, right. The only thread of bankruptcy here is your credibility, which went bankrupt a long time ago. How's that transparency working out for you over in BTCFPGA land?

psilan

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: creativex on November 28, 2012, 02:40:02 PM

I wonder what BFL's balance sheet looks like. They could be at real risk of bankruptcy, particularly if they have actually dipped into pre-order funds for all this supposed chip tinkering. I wonder how long they can stay affloat while talking about bullet runs, respins, and multiple product delays.

Ironically it's ASICs and their pre-order launch in particular that's crimped the FPGA market, so I'm sure sales of existing products must be way down even with the upgrade policy in place.

They only have enough FPGAs to help replacements. They don't have any left to sell.

creativex

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

I wonder what BFL's balance sheet looks like. They could be at real risk of bankruptcy, particularly if they have actually dipped into pre-order funds for all this supposed chip tinkering. I wonder how long they can stay affloat while talking about bullet runs, respins, and multiple product delays.

Ironically it's ASICs and their pre-order launch in particular that's crimped the FPGA market, so I'm sure sales of existing products must be way down even with the upgrade policy in place.

Coinoisseur

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 28, 2012, 01:24:37 PM

Quote from: mrb on November 28, 2012, 12:54:46 PM

Quote from: TheBible on November 28, 2012, 06:09:02 AM

Quote from: mrb on November 27, 2012, 02:16:32 PM

BFL's legitimacy is dead simple to assert: they managed to be greatly successful and profitable inventing, making, and selling thousands of FPGA Singles. I have many of them in my very own hands.

And if you have a profitable business, the natural human reaction, even for greedy people (the type who may want to defraud), is to simply expand the business, not to do something riskier by defrauding your customers.

Pirate paid out for awhile, too.

The difference being that Pirate was obviously loosing money by loaning it from his customers at 7%/week.
Whereas BFL is obviously making money by selling the FPGA Singles ($430 or $150 profit margin out of the $600 price, as per FPGA cost estimated by ngzhang to be respectively either $50 or $200, plus $50 for the PCB/case).

That estimation was very forthcoming. Everybody said from the beginning that if they were forced to pay even remotely retail prices (which isn't that unlikely considering the quantity is low for the industry)
it would have been a net loss for them.

I'd say it entirely possible that the FPGA Singles were produced at a loss to start the confidence game. Added to that if BFL really were a scam you betcha the ones who came after would be to so ngzangs motives are in question here.

I think it's much more plausible that they acquired repurposed used FPGA chips since the Bitcoin market has shown a remarkable tolerance in the FPGA realm for short warranties.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: mrb on November 28, 2012, 12:54:46 PM

Quote from: TheBible on November 28, 2012, 06:09:02 AM

Quote from: mrb on November 27, 2012, 02:16:32 PM

BFL's legitimacy is dead simple to assert: they managed to be greatly successful and profitable inventing, making, and selling thousands of FPGA Singles. I have many of them in my very own hands.

And if you have a profitable business, the natural human reaction, even for greedy people (the type who may want to defraud), is to simply expand the business, not to do something riskier by defrauding your customers.

Pirate paid out for awhile, too.

The difference being that Pirate was obviously loosing money by loaning it from his customers at 7%/week.
Whereas BFL is obviously making money by selling the FPGA Singles ($430 or $150 profit margin out of the $600 price, as per FPGA cost estimated by ngzhang to be respectively either $50 or $200, plus $50 for the PCB/case).

That estimation was very forthcoming. Everybody said from the beginning that if they were forced to pay even remotely retail prices (which isn't that unlikely considering the quantity is low for the industry)
it would have been a net loss for them.

I'd say it entirely possible that the FPGA Singles were produced at a loss to start the confidence game. Added to that if BFL really were a scam you betcha the ones who came after would be to so ngzangs motives are in question here.

mrb

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1028

Quote from: TheBible on November 28, 2012, 06:09:02 AM

Quote from: mrb on November 27, 2012, 02:16:32 PM

BFL's legitimacy is dead simple to assert: they managed to be greatly successful and profitable inventing, making, and selling thousands of FPGA Singles. I have many of them in my very own hands.

And if you have a profitable business, the natural human reaction, even for greedy people (the type who may want to defraud), is to simply expand the business, not to do something riskier by defrauding your customers.

Pirate paid out for awhile, too.

The difference being that Pirate was obviously loosing money by loaning it from his customers at 7%/week.
Whereas BFL is obviously making money by selling the FPGA Singles ($430 or $150 profit margin out of the $600 price, as per FPGA cost estimated by ngzhang to be respectively either $50 or $200, plus $50 for the PCB/case).

squeept

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: AndrewBUD on November 28, 2012, 12:35:11 PM

I'll guess that they won't ship in January either.

You're just talking to yourself, aren't you?

AndrewBUD

hero member

Activity: 1078

Merit: 502

I'll guess that they won't ship in January either.

AndrewBUD

hero member

Activity: 1078

Merit: 502

Quote from: squeept on November 28, 2012, 12:24:31 PM

Well, just to nitpick, the next delay from any company would be announced in 2 weeks. Otherwise, there will be hardware on the way.

Goodluck... I wouldn't get my hopes up.

squeept

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

...

Quote from: AndrewBUD on November 28, 2012, 12:30:12 PM

Quote from: squeept on November 28, 2012, 12:24:31 PM

Well, just to nitpick, the next delay from any company would be announced in 2 weeks. Otherwise, there will be hardware on the way.

Goodluck... I wouldn't get my hopes up.

About what? It's one or the other. There's no "maybe" in there.

squeept

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Well, just to nitpick, the next delay from any company would be announced in 2 weeks. Otherwise, there will be hardware on the way.

AndrewBUD

hero member

Activity: 1078

Merit: 502

When people are mining with them and talking about them.. When dev's have had a chance to customize existing software for them.

We'll be talking about this exact same thing in about 3 months when the next delay is announced.

abeaulieu

sr. member

Activity: 295

Merit: 250

Response from Nasser regarding the BFL chip revision:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1363605

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 28, 2012, 11:04:14 AM

Substitute for Bitcoin ASICs.

I think there is a good chance there will be no Bitcoin ASICs from those who announced them ever.

Maybe not sufficient proof for you to believe there are. Even if half of the community is hashing with 3 different ASIC devices at the beginning of next year, you will somehow declare there's not enough proof.

squeept

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Yep. It's amazing that Dell ever stopped using an FPGA as the CPU of their computers, since the performance is so close.

bitmar

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: greyhawk on November 28, 2012, 10:53:07 AM

Quote from: squeept on November 28, 2012, 10:45:05 AM

My point was that this person above seems to not believe that ASIC devices exist at all.

My point was how you would arrive at the conclusion that he meant ASICs in general and not SHA256 hashing ASICs (which would be much more logical considering where we are)? Because there is nothing that points to him talking about ASICs in general.

There is a lot SHA256 hashing ASIC but they are similar (performance) to FPGA. A lot of major electronics companies (like ALTERA, Xilinx, IP Cores, helion) have tried to make several times faster ASIC than FPGA (SHA256) but without success. BFL will make a breakthrough on a global scale.

http://www.cast-inc.com/ip-cores/encryption/sha-256/index.html
http://www.heliontech.com/fast_hash.htm
http://www.chipestimate.com/ip.php?High+Performance+SHA+and+MD5+Hashing+Cores&id=24018
http://www.xilinx.com/products/intellectual-property/Fast_SHA-1-SHA-256_MD5_Hashing_cores.htm
http://www.ipcores.com/sha_ip_core.htm

squeept

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Gotcha. Because this guy ^ exists.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Substitute for Bitcoin ASICs.

I think there is a good chance there will be no Bitcoin ASICs from those who announced them ever.

Topic: Already delays in BFL shipment plans? - page 11. (Read 49567 times)